Author
Topic: What is the soul? (Read 10593 times)

This feeling you have, this energy that must exist, assume for one moment that there was no soul, how would the biological computer's life be different? What would be lacking, how do you think your perception of love would be different.

I mean technically I understand that the energy of your existence is indefinite, in that the radiation of your thoughts and heat signature radiates out in all directions but like a radio signal or a flash of light it just continues to spread in all directions for all eternity. But like the flash of light it does not care, think, reason, it just is. Why would you think your energy is coherent, and reasoning for all eternity?

if the soul does exist, why can you change its perceptions, and basic essence by physical means. Why does Phineas Gauge's basic nature change after a TBI?

Quote

In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was "no longer Gage"

There are numerous indications that who you are is contained in the physical matter that is your brain. You can be completely changed at the most basic of levels by trauma/injury, and or drug. You can be physically reprogramed my mental trauma or even intentional brain washing.

I don't understand what the soul is if you can change it by physical means. I also see no evidence of permanence, just because I have biological processes that allow me to view the world, love, hate, enjoy I see no reason that this has to be caused by a permanent soul/spirit.

How widespread is the soul concept historically amongst the world's religions and how do they compare descriptively?

Anyone know?

i) The greek soul - psyche[1] this, as others above have already stated, was originally just the 'life force' which distinguished the animate from the inanimate. So a stone has no soul, a plant has some, an animal somewhat more, and humans the most. This general principle then gets 'reified' (made into a thing) in two different ways - Plato and later Platonist thinkers emphasized the soul as an immaterial unchanging object which constituted the true aspect of a person, in particular the rational aspect (as opposed to our corruptible 'false' bodies which would include our appetites and desires). This soul had the advantage of being 'immortal' (both preceeding and after death)[2]. Aristotle and later scholastic thinkers developed the soul as the 'potential' for a human (think of a factory mold, waiting to be filled by molten metal); this soul was philosophically subtler and did not hint at existence before life so was adopted by the Catholic church who, using some fancy footwork (Aquinas), claimed that this type of soul, while not able to exist without a body, allowed for the possibility of resurrection. These two versions of the soul dominate in the western world.

ii) The Hindu soul - From the Sanskrit word atman, in many regards very similar to Plato's notion of the soul, it is also an unchanging object which constitutes the true person; it is also opposed to the corruptible body (sharira in Sanskrit), also exists both before and after life; in this case in a cycle of rebirth (karma-samsara). One key difference is that this 'soul' is not the starkly rational aspect found in Plato but includes desires and appetites; thus the 'soul' keeps us bound to the cycle of death and rebirth. To a certain extent the goal of Hinduism is to overcome the drives of the atman, just as much as the sharira.

iii) The Chinese soul - There is no clear word meaning 'soul' - some people have associated the notion of Chinese word ch'i[3] but this is not really so; ch'i is basically all stuff - physical matter is just slow heavy ch'i - so our bodies are ch'i. If there is a 'soul' in Chinese thought it will be of ch'i too - but then everything is! Perhaps the best word to be translated as soul is shen[4]. However even here we run into difficulties - at one extreme shen can refer to folk story spirits and ghosts; hwoever it can also be an attribute: shen ren - soulful person, or even objects[5]. Here we do seem to have a notion of soul which is far from the Greek Soul (Platonic or Aristotelian); while it can refer to things (spirits) it is mostly used metaphorically, in the way we might use 'spiritual' in the West.

iv) The Pagan soul - While it is ridiculous to create such a category there does seem to be a distinct notion of 'soul' which appears in various animist and shamanic cultures (eg. Pre-Christian paganism, Siberian Shamanism, Japanese + Chinese folk religion, African Vodun, South American Shamanism, Australian Dreamtime etc...). So very loosely: there is a 'soul' world which exits parallel to the mundane everyday one. In this world all things have an attendant 'soul' even things we might think of as inanimate like stones, mountains, rivers etc... This world is mysterious and interacted with through ritual and Shamanic practice. Here the soul is not so much a part of a person, but an associated 'alter-ego', very unlike the Greek soul or the soul of Chinese philosophy. This 'soul' is mysterious and ambiguous existing, as it does, in an different world.

I'm sure I've made several errors of simplification and of course there are many more versions not mentioned

some skepisms, 1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it. Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

The fact is, everything you are is a function of your brain activity. Full stop.

Does that mean you would never distinguish between thinking something and feeling something?

From all I've read, heard and considered, it is not possible to have a feeling without some thought behind it as the causal agent. I will ask you to dwell on that for a bit, and then tell me how a feeling could occur without some thought process (whether conscious or subconscious) behind it.

This feeling you have, this energy that must exist, assume for one moment that there was no soul, how would the biological computer's life be different? What would be lacking, how do you think your perception of love would be different.

I mean technically I understand that the energy of your existence is indefinite, in that the radiation of your thoughts and heat signature radiates out in all directions but like a radio signal or a flash of light it just continues to spread in all directions for all eternity. But like the flash of light it does not care, think, reason, it just is. Why would you think your energy is coherent, and reasoning for all eternity?

I guess it is hope for existence w/o suffering. Hope in reuniting with my loved ones. Just hope.

if the soul does exist, why can you change its perceptions, and basic essence by physical means. Why does Phineas Gauge's basic nature change after a TBI?

Quote

In this regard his mind was radically changed, so decidedly that his friends and acquaintances said he was "no longer Gage"

There are numerous indications that who you are is contained in the physical matter that is your brain. You can be completely changed at the most basic of levels by trauma/injury, and or drug. You can be physically reprogramed my mental trauma or even intentional brain washing.

I think your soul only changes if you allow it to. You can take a tragedy and turn it into something positive or negative. It's up to you. You control your perception not your soul. If there is trauma to the brain I don't think that changes your soul. Look at that Congress Lady from Arizona, ugh I can't remember her name. She got shot in the head. Her spirit is stronger now IMO than ever before. The same as me with my cancer battle. I read in a Chicken Soup for Breast Cancer book a phrase that I really understood was; "you can tread on my body but you may NOT tread on my soul".

I don't understand what the soul is if you can change it by physical means. I also see no evidence of permanence, just because I have biological processes that allow me to view the world, love, hate, enjoy I see no reason that this has to be caused by a permanent soul/spirit.

You can allow changes to the character of your soul, IMO.

I'm sure there are perfectly good reasons why you feel no need to have a permanent soul.

After he was impaled through his eye, and through his brain, he changed almost completely. He had no choice or anything to do with it. His brain composition literally changed.

The spike went through his prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain where decision-making and impulse control lives. When Gage's was damaged by the rail spike, he lost the ability to manage his temper or control his impulses, his "acceptable social behavior" judgment was gone. One could argue that he was no longer the "same man" in any way other than biologically.

Logged

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

After he was impaled through his eye, and through his brain, he changed almost completely. He had no choice or anything to do with it. His brain composition literally changed.

The spike went through his prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain where decision-making and impulse control lives. When Gage's was damaged by the rail spike, he lost the ability to manage his temper or control his impulses, his "acceptable social behavior" judgment was gone. One could argue that he was no longer the "same man" in any way other than biologically.

Correct, and agreed.

One could even argue that even biologically, he changed because that area, prefrontal cortex, is also responsible for personality.

Logged

Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

You have told me a story about a change to Gage's brain. I don't think it changed his soul. The fact that he survived at all shows me his spirit is strong.

Sorry to butt in. I think the problem, Junebug, is that if you can attribute change in personality to the brain, what does the 'spirit' actually do? We know that brain injuries can affect: memory, language, emotions, sexuality, etc... In fact, as far as I am aware, there is not a single aspect of human behaviour we cannot link to the brain[1].

If all behaviour links to the brain, what role is left for the spirit?

His "spirit" is not the reason he survived. It was purely medical. Why would he act differently, even from family and friends if his "soul" hasn't changed.

Because his brain was damaged.

I "think" it was his spirit.

Spirit healing is what integrative nursing is all about. The oncologists around my town have spiritual counselors and highly recommend it when facing a cancer battle. Yes I'm pretty sure this is becoming the normal around the country in medicine. I just read an article the other day in a local magazine called Sophie. They spoke to DR Laura Fleck, neurologist. http://sophiemagazine.com/healthy-living/the-meaning-in-medicine%E2%80%A9/

You have told me a story about a change to Gage's brain. I don't think it changed his soul. The fact that he survived at all shows me his spirit is strong.

Sorry to butt in. I think the problem, Junebug, is that if you can attribute change in personality to the brain, what does the 'spirit' actually do? We know that brain injuries can affect: memory, language, emotions, sexuality, etc... In fact, as far as I am aware, there is not a single aspect of human behaviour we cannot link to the brain[1].

If all behaviour links to the brain, what role is left for the spirit?

junebug, you're exhausting. I think you'd do well to adopt what what W.K. Clifford offered:

"It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."

Thanks!

I have sufficient evidence "for me" to perceive what I do and I am open to changing my perception.

I firmly believe you must find your own evidence, FIRM. It's about the climb and how you get there not the religion you chose or don't chose. That stuff can lead you in the wrong direction. Your spirit won't. IMO.

Shoot penfold I'm not sure either. I don't think there is anything to compare the spirit to. What does that mean?

I suppose the reason I ask is this.

If your spirit is simply a concept which you use to unite things then that is fine, there is no limit on how we can or should talk about the world. Similarly if someone speaks of their 'soul' as a concept which unifies all their disparate parts I am fine with that; in fact I think it is a useful way to talk. It is what I mean when I say something is 'good for my soul' etc... We don't ask if concepts exist or not, but rather whether they are useful (try for yourself - which is a better question "Does the concept of number exist?" vs "Is the concept of number useful?")

However if your spirit is a thing then the situation is different. If it is a thing then the question of existence is central. If you want to know whether something exists then you must seek objective evidence. Here I think those who believe in the soul/spirit as a thing, run into problems, because it seems to me that there is no objective evidence for their existence (hence my original question about the function of 'spirit').

I guess what I am saying is this; if by 'spirit' you just mean some concept then fair enough; but if by 'spirit' you mean a thing then you should be prepared to provide objective evidence for that claim.

Logged

"Goodness is about what you do. Not who you pray to." - Terry Pratchett

There is no "my evidence" or "your evidence", there is only evidence. What you are displaying is the opposite; where you adopt......nay.....embrace a "neat idea" and then go ahead and try to find evidence (no matter how tissue-thin) to back it up, and then smugly feel that your beliefs are true & correct. This is tantamount to shooting an arrow at a barn wall from 300' away, and then walking up and drawing the bullseye where the arrow landed.

There is no "my evidence" or "your evidence", there is only evidence. What you are displaying is the opposite; where you adopt......nay.....embrace a "neat idea" and then go ahead and try to find evidence (no matter how tissue-thin) to back it up, and then smugly feel that your beliefs are true & correct. This is tantamount to shooting an arrow at a barn wall from 300' away, and then walking up and drawing the bullseye where the arrow landed.

If you want to know how hard scientific objectivity is, then find something to measure; something mundane, like alkaline battery performance. Mid-way through your battery testing, you will develop a hypothesis about which brand is better, and then you will start to become attached to your theory, and start to avoid testing it too much, in case you find a batch that is worse than the loser brands. The amount of effort that you put into doing testing, demands that you find a productive result: or something to say about the topic. If you feel that you are wasting your time, then you will become despondent and lose hair. Then you will start to accept funding from a rival brand, and start to fudge the results.

Science takes persistence and unfortunately a great deal of intelligence to come up with a hypothesis worth testing.

Logged

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.